Originally Posted by Retired F4
The question is, and i asked that before: Had the the crew a way to recognize the exact state of ALT Law, in this case ALT2B, which differs significantly from a variety of ALT Laws, and did they?
Maybe, maybe not, but given the inputs on the right stick it wouldn't matter anyway, as low speed stability of ALT1 is easily overridden and bank angles would not have triggered the protection before the aeroplane was truly and deeply stalled.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
The listing from Turbine D does not offer any detailed information into what kind of ALT Law the FCS in the mentioned UAS events reverted.
It does not, but the listing at the end of interim 2 shows most of the incidents involved 2 or 3 pitots. If we combine it with A330 FCOM which unambiguously states that high AoA protection is lost if 2 ADR are lost or ADR disagree, we can conclude...
Originally Posted by Retired F4
We might as well have here with AF447 the only case, where ALT 2B was triggered and in all other cases more protections had been available.
...that there is very good chance that majority (a large one) of incidents involved degrading to the same subset of ALT law AF447 experienced.
Originally Posted by jcjeant
Some other did not respect the stall warning (discarded cause believing to be false) .. and you know that (already posted multiple times)
If you happen to be referring to other A33o/340 UAS events, then: nope. We don't know that yet. Notion was posted but without quote from reliable source so far.
BEA makes it pretty clear that only 13 of 36 discovered occurrences could be fully analyzed as there were insufficient data on the rest. 9 cases of stall warning and 5 cases of voluntary descent following it were recorded among the 13. Nowhere is mentioned that any crew has disregarded the stall warning or tried to climb when stall warning went off. Except in interim 3. Only one crew.
Originally Posted by Linktrained
Thank you for mentioning the F16D as a training aircraft.
You are welcome. F-16D is combat capable trainer.
Originally Posted by Linktrained
I would suppose that Concorde COULD have been used/ MUST have been used, as a "training aircraft" too !
Unlike high-performance, combat single seaters, that require dedicated dual-control version for conversion and weapons training, airliners are required to have fully functional dual sets of controls per certification requirements. They can be used for base and line training without any modification.
Originally Posted by Linktrained
The point that I was attempting to make with reference to the DH86b was that positive hand-over of the control was VERY visible to both pilots.
Just as the myth about aeroplanes with interconnected yokes (especially those from Seattle) being immune to panic pull was getting seriously damaged, here comes the wink-wink-nudge-nudge that flight controls system of DeHavilland Express is in some, allegedly important, aspect superior to A330's. PPRuNE never ceases to amaze me.
Originally Posted by gums
I pointed this out early - the jet seems to have an excellent aerodynamic design. No extreme buffet, roll oscillations ( extreme, not the ones we see on the traces), etc.
True, just to add that this feature is purely incidental and definitively not by design. A330 was never supposed to get to alpha AF447 achieved.
Originally Posted by BOAC
I must express some concern. clandestino, that you do not consider
"The pitch attitude changes from
6° nose-down to 13° nose-up in
11 seconds then stabilises at
about 11° nose-up"
to be a rapid change in attitude, nor a pitch attitude peaking at 18 degrees to be 'extreme'?
Both in a heavy jet at high level.
I do. To me that is anything but 'benign'.
It is unusual for normal, steady, cruise flight, but is very, very remote from what usually happens in upsets, such as Dynasty 006, Interflug at Moscow Tarom at Paris and there was no classic spin that Birgenair 757 displayed when stalled. 19 degrees of pitch change in 11 seconds is less than 2°/sec average - not very fast in my book. While CM2 actions were distinctively odd, aeroplane's post-stall behaviour would not be intuitive to me at all. I'd expect highly loaded, supercritical, swept wings when pulled really hard to develop asymmetric stall, drop and autorotate. I expected that damage to collected flotsam would turn out to be the final result of very flat spin. That AF447 went down in Cessna 150-like gentle mushing is amazing.
I wonder what conspiracy theorists will make out of it.
